Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description provides essential behavioral details: data source (TED, official Publications Office API), freshness (new notices daily), caching (1h cache), and pricing ($0.01 USDC per call). It effectively conveys that this is a read-only, paid API call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences deliver purpose, query example, parameter explanations, output fields, caching, and pricing. Every clause has a purpose, and the key benefit is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core: output fields, parameter meanings, caching, and pricing. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but the limit parameter and simple list response make this a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining cpv as 8-digit CPV code, country as 3-letter buyer country, and 'all optional'. The example query with days_back and limit gives practical context. The schema only provides names and types, so this clarification is valuable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: finding EU public procurement notices from TED (Tenders Electronic Daily), with a specific source and example query. This is a distinct capability across all sibling tools, which focus on company lookups and validations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a concrete query example and notes that all parameters are optional, implying when to use the tool (when EU procurement data is needed). However, it does not explicitly state conditions for use or compare with alternatives, though no sibling tool overlaps in functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.